Religion vs Religious Persons - Atheist Nexus2015-08-03T00:15:49Zhttp://atheistnexus.org/forum/topics/religion-vs-religious-persons?feed=yes&xn_auth=noMy post was just a response t…tag:atheistnexus.org,2010-07-17:2182797:Comment:9127332010-07-17T13:28:07.348ZFabiohttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/Fabio
My post was just a response to the opening one, actually :P
My post was just a response to the opening one, actually :P Well, I'm not a strict propon…tag:atheistnexus.org,2010-07-17:2182797:Comment:9127252010-07-17T13:16:57.882ZFabiohttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/Fabio
Well, I'm not a strict proponent of memetics nor was I trying to be.
Well, I'm not a strict proponent of memetics nor was I trying to be. I define an ideology as "viol…tag:atheistnexus.org,2010-07-17:2182797:Comment:9127172010-07-17T13:07:48.409ZFabiohttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/Fabio
I define an ideology as "violent" whenever it happens to spawn violence as a logical consequence at statistically relevant rates. Most religious ideologies historically fit that definition perfectly well. I don't think that placing part of the blame on the underlying ideology in any way exonerates violent individuals. It just serves to identify a big part of the problem, because that's what religion itself is.<br />
<br />
"<i>With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people…</i>
I define an ideology as "violent" whenever it happens to spawn violence as a logical consequence at statistically relevant rates. Most religious ideologies historically fit that definition perfectly well. I don't think that placing part of the blame on the underlying ideology in any way exonerates violent individuals. It just serves to identify a big part of the problem, because that's what religion itself is.<br />
<br />
"<i>With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.</i>" - Steven Weinberg LOL reminds me of a south par…tag:atheistnexus.org,2010-07-17:2182797:Comment:9127022010-07-17T12:51:13.832ZJoel Cabideshttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/JoelCabides
LOL reminds me of a south park episode
LOL reminds me of a south park episode 'Is this research memetics or…tag:atheistnexus.org,2010-06-23:2182797:Comment:8751032010-06-23T01:18:24.148ZDavehttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/Dave34
<b>'Is this research memetics or does it consider memetics?<br />
<br />
If we assume that ideas spread as memes and that ideas have positive or negative value when acted upon it seems like it should be possible to show that memes like religion (as the idea and not as the body of organisms that promote it) are in fact harmful.'</b><br />
<br />
These are some sources I've found useful, Tom. I agree with Fred that memetic theories are fairly controversial in terms of explaining cultural transmission and its effects.…
<b>'Is this research memetics or does it consider memetics?<br />
<br />
If we assume that ideas spread as memes and that ideas have positive or negative value when acted upon it seems like it should be possible to show that memes like religion (as the idea and not as the body of organisms that promote it) are in fact harmful.'</b><br />
<br />
These are some sources I've found useful, Tom. I agree with Fred that memetic theories are fairly controversial in terms of explaining cultural transmission and its effects. Richerson and Boyd analyse a range of possibilities in terms of cultural evolutionary forces (2005: 69), and Dan Sperber's research is well known.<br />
<br />
Several of these refs. have more to do with neuroscience and related research fields, which are telling us a great deal about individual and social effects of 'ideas', or whatever else we might think of as 'transmissible units of culture'. It's perhaps not too crucial whether or not we think of these as 'memes', as long as we take the limitations of the theories into account. Epiphenom and the Non-religion and Secularity Research Network are general resources I find useful. I'm afraid I don't have hyperlinks for all of them.<br />
<br />
Bering, Jesse (2009). Religious Ideas Burrow Into Brains. Scientific American, March 26 2009.<br />
<br />
Blackmore, Susan (1999). The Meme Machine. New York: Oxford University Press. (Particularly 116-120)<br />
<br />
Boyer, Pascal and Brian Bergstrom (208). Evolutionary Perspectives<br />
on Religion. Annual Review of Anthropology, 2008, 37:111–130<br />
(<a href="http://anthro.annualreviews.org" target="_blank">anthro.annualreviews.org</a>)<br />
<br />
Epiphenom (<a href="http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com" target="_blank">epiphenom.fieldofscience.com</a>)<br />
<br />
Harris, Sam, Jonas T. Kaplan, Ashley Curiel, Susan Y. Bookheimer4, Marco Iacoboni and Mark S. Cohen (2009). The Neural Correlates of Religious and Nonreligious Belief. PLoS ONE, October 2009, Volume 4, Issue 10 (<a href="http://www.plosone.org" target="_blank">www.plosone.org</a>).<br />
<br />
McKay, Ryan T. and Daniel C. Dennett (2009). The Evolution of Misbelief. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2009, 32, 493–561 (<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/ryantmckay" target="_blank">homepage.mac.com/ryantmckay</a>; <a href="http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/incbios/dennettd/dennettd.htm" target="_blank">ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/incbios/dennettd/dennettd.htm</a>)<br />
<br />
Non-religion and Secularity Research Network (<a href="http://NSRN-discuss@jiscmail.ac.uk" target="_blank">NSRN-discuss@jiscmail.ac.uk</a>)<br />
<br />
Richerson, Peter J. and Robert Boyd (2005). Not by Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution. Chicago &amp; London: University of Chicago Press.<br />
<br />
Sacks, Oliver and Joy Hirsch (2008). A Neurology of Belief.<br />
Annals of Neurology, Vol 63, No 2, February 2008. Is this research memetics or…tag:atheistnexus.org,2010-06-22:2182797:Comment:8744162010-06-22T11:05:44.160ZTom Thompsonhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/TomThompson
Is this research memetics or does it consider memetics?<br />
<br />
If we assume that ideas spread as memes and that ideas have positive or negative value when acted upon it seems like it should be possible to show that memes like religion (as the idea and not as the body of organisms that promote it) are in fact harmful.
Is this research memetics or does it consider memetics?<br />
<br />
If we assume that ideas spread as memes and that ideas have positive or negative value when acted upon it seems like it should be possible to show that memes like religion (as the idea and not as the body of organisms that promote it) are in fact harmful. Stephen's model:
'Think of i…tag:atheistnexus.org,2010-06-22:2182797:Comment:8741992010-06-22T05:50:52.867ZDavehttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/Dave34
Stephen's model:<br />
<br />
<b>'Think of it this way:<br />
<br />
(A) Religion -&gt; Action<br />
(B) Religion -&gt; Person -&gt; Action<br />
(C) Person -&gt; Religion -&gt; Action<br />
<br />
My critique is with (A) and (B), where Religion is this thing, separate and distinct from the Person, that can either act without the Person or through the Person. But this is not so. Persons act through Religion, however the concept of Reilgion is manifested in the Person.<br />
<br />
[...] Religion is descriptive, not active'</b><br />
<br />
I like Stephen’s…
Stephen's model:<br />
<br />
<b>'Think of it this way:<br />
<br />
(A) Religion -&gt; Action<br />
(B) Religion -&gt; Person -&gt; Action<br />
(C) Person -&gt; Religion -&gt; Action<br />
<br />
My critique is with (A) and (B), where Religion is this thing, separate and distinct from the Person, that can either act without the Person or through the Person. But this is not so. Persons act through Religion, however the concept of Reilgion is manifested in the Person.<br />
<br />
[...] Religion is descriptive, not active'</b><br />
<br />
I like Stephen’s three-point model. It helps in showing that the outcome of interest in each of his hypothetical consequence chains is <i>action</i>, i.e. specific individual or group <i>behaviours</i>. I agree with Stephen’s view that ‘religion’ is a descriptive concept, and I add that it’s also an abstract concept. As such, I would want to know how useful its role is in understanding behaviour.<br />
<br />
Approaches to understanding behaviour in this as in other domains can be broadly <i>deductive</i> or broadly <i>inductive</i>. In the case of deduction, an approach might go something like this, methodologically:<br />
<br />
(1) Find some dictionary definitions of ‘religion’<br />
<br />
(2) Add definitional elaborations from your own knowledge and other sources<br />
<br />
(3) Establish the resulting ‘cluster’ concept as a classificatory or definitional criterion<br />
<br />
(4) Consider a range of behaviours, practices, attitudes, beliefs and so forth that seem to fit your criterion<br />
<br />
(5) Reject them if they don’t, or use your findings to modify your definition<br />
<br />
One can see that this deductive process has a tendency always to refer back to (1), (2) and (3), which you have virtually made an <i>a priori</i> for your thinking, and a valid question is then how much you are likely to find out that advances your understanding of the <i>issues</i> and the <i>behaviours</i> rather than just refining your understanding of <i>definitions</i>.<br />
<br />
If, on the other hand, your methodology is inductive, it might perhaps go roughly like this:<br />
<br />
(1*) Identify specific domains of individual, group or institutional behaviours, beliefs, practices and so forth which self-describe as ‘religious’, or are assumed according to some current cultural understandings to be so describable<br />
<br />
(2*) Make no initial assumptions about whether such self-descriptions or cultural understandings fit some predetermined descriptive or abstract criteria<br />
<br />
(3*) Consider empirical research findings which might help to identify cause/effect chains imputing some behaviour or course of action to an abstract concept<br />
<br />
(4*) Consider social, family, relationship, power-differentiating, political, psychological and other factors that might impinge on (3*)<br />
<br />
(5*) Check whether what you have found out justifies any kind of generalisation of the type ‘religion is violent’ (as per Stephen’s OP)<br />
<br />
It's true that both kinds of inferencing are typically involved in thinking, so that it's more a question of emphasis than of a simple either/or choice. However, in a domain of interest like the one under discussion, which generates a high degree of controversy and confusion, a key error we are all prone to, I suggest, is that of <i>over-generalisation</i>, or going beyond the evidence available to suit a predetermined theoretical criterion. Consequently, my preference is for working inductively from real-world specifics rather than from abstractions, or at least putting the latter into quarantine until their meaning can emerge inductively. Evidently, to quarantine abstract concepts one must first identify them, which is both where I came in and where I agree with Stephen.<br />
<br />
There's a great deal of interesting research going on at the present time in this area which seeks empirical warrrantability through some such methodological framework. I think here is where the con…tag:atheistnexus.org,2010-06-21:2182797:Comment:8730062010-06-21T12:28:31.373ZJaumehttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/Jaume
<i>I think here is where the confusion in this discussion lies. Your use of the word 'religions' is not the same as my use of the word 'religion'.</i><br />
<br />
It was obvious enough from the get-go. But I think this view of religion as a kind of platonic ideal has little bearing on the real world. Except in comparative religion studies.<br />
<br />
<i>Are you claiming that Religion is more than a collection of ideas?; that it is being that can act, separate and distinct from human beings? Can a mere idea, in and…</i>
<i>I think here is where the confusion in this discussion lies. Your use of the word 'religions' is not the same as my use of the word 'religion'.</i><br />
<br />
It was obvious enough from the get-go. But I think this view of religion as a kind of platonic ideal has little bearing on the real world. Except in comparative religion studies.<br />
<br />
<i>Are you claiming that Religion is more than a collection of ideas?; that it is being that can act, separate and distinct from human beings? Can a mere idea, in and of itself, act?</i><br />
<br />
This makes me think of Scientology, because the focus of its doctrine (and, to a lesser extent, the lack of divergent interpretations) makes it a simple example to deal with. It's structured like a mainstream religion, it even has religious status in several countries. One could make a point that it's little more than a scam, that its sole purpose is to suck money from its adherents, and that Miscavige and the top brass are fully aware of it. This last point is not so obvious: Miscavige seems at least as brainwashed as the average Scientologist is. At the moment, Scientology looks more like a ship set on autopilot. Granted, it couldn't function without people, but it seems to have acquired a life and agency of its own not even Miscavige could do much about (assuming he'd want to.) It's semantic hair-splitting…tag:atheistnexus.org,2010-06-21:2182797:Comment:8727462010-06-21T06:42:20.999ZФелч Гроганhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/goatse_ubermensch
It's semantic hair-splitting <i>a la</i> atheism/agnosticism. Or <i>typhos</i>. I fail to see the either justification or necessity for <i>nuance ad absurdum</i>. You could mount the same sort of discussion over "speed kills" - yes you could argue about it, but why?
It's semantic hair-splitting <i>a la</i> atheism/agnosticism. Or <i>typhos</i>. I fail to see the either justification or necessity for <i>nuance ad absurdum</i>. You could mount the same sort of discussion over "speed kills" - yes you could argue about it, but why? "It is a rather odd claim, si…tag:atheistnexus.org,2010-06-21:2182797:Comment:8726662010-06-21T04:50:47.749ZTom Thompsonhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/TomThompson
"<i>It is a rather odd claim, since religion is an idea, and violence is an action.</i>"<br />
<br />
Most of this discussion is centered around the definition of "religion". Let's all recognize that religion has many definitions and not just one.<br />
religion<br />
- 5 dictionary results<br />
re·li·gion<br />
<br />
–noun<br />
1.<br />
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and…
"<i>It is a rather odd claim, since religion is an idea, and violence is an action.</i>"<br />
<br />
Most of this discussion is centered around the definition of "religion". Let's all recognize that religion has many definitions and not just one.<br />
religion<br />
- 5 dictionary results<br />
re·li·gion<br />
<br />
–noun<br />
1.<br />
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.<br />
2.<br />
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.<br />
3.<br />
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.<br />
4.<br />
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.<br />
5.<br />
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.<br />
6.<br />
something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.<br />
7.<br />
religions, Archaic. religious rites.<br />
8.<br />
Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion" target="_blank">http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion</a><br />
<br />
"<i>My objection relates to agency and accountability. Religion, as an idea, can have no agency — can not act — and can not be held accountable. It is people who have agency and can be held accountable for the expression of that agency.</i>"<br />
<br />
I must disagree. If this were true then brainwashing and marketing would be useless exercises. In particular, brainwashing techniques are effective ways of making an individual perform exactly as desired including committing acts of violence. You may be tempted to counter that the "idea" that the individual was brainwashed with is not at fault and the individual is solely responsible for the violence but I suggest that this is ludicrous. A bad idea acted upon is vile.